On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I object to every one of the below intents. > > I'm wondering what is needed for you to be considered to have fulfilled the > monthly requirement and whether your objections violate it. > > In the first Eastman week of every month the Registrar SHALL > attempt to deregister every player that has not sent a message to > a public forum in the preceding month.
I've long-wondered how requirements to do something match with methods that require support/objections or "attempts" to do something. I've wondered for example what what happen if I just never followed through on a posted intent for such a SHALL and let it time out, given that other supporters could complete it I could argue "I attempted but no one carried through." Or maybe, since the requirement is literally to "attempt" to do it, if I purposefully misspecify a parameter so the intent turns out to be invalid, I've still"attempted" it so satisfied the requirement. Or maybe, since a dependent action doesn't "happen" until the intent is resolved, maybe "attempt" means that I'm required to say "I hereby do X with 3 Support" even if I DON'T have enough support, or never announced intent. That's a literal "attempt to do X with 3 support" that then happens to succeed or fail depending on whether intent was announced and got support. I don't know the answer to any of these. But I'm willing to bet that IF I correctly announce intent, and IF I fully intend to carry out the intent if it gets the right support (though this can't be proven), then a CFJ would hold that I made "a good faith attempt" to do my official duty even if I objected to it personally. Maybe the judge would even set a new precedent distinguishing "clearly private actions" from official duties in adjudicating how much I can impede a process and have it still count as "an attempt".
